Last Edited 2021
email - email@example.com
North Lamar HS ‘15-‘19
University of Central Oklahoma '23
2x NDT Qualifier
I coach some Texas high school policy
I think I’m a flex debater/judge, 99% of people will tell you I’m a K debater/judge; you should probably listen to those people.
Do what you want, have good cards. I appreciate debates and most enjoy judging debates that are meaningful to the debaters. I judge a lot of K debates. I consider myself well-read on the following areas of literature (in order of most read to least): Settler Colonialism, Imperialism, Antiblackness, Ableism, Queer Theory, Economic Theories (cap), Poststructuralism flavored things.
In K debates, I read every card mentioned in the 2nr/2ar. In policy debates, I read cards that debaters tell me to read. (i dont like reading more than 1 sentence about BMDs or whatever) Evidence is really important, good evidence wins rounds. I don’t like cards that are super long, (its ok im guilty of it too) if the card makes multiple arguments in separate sections of the article... then cut that article as multiple cards. I don’t want to read a card that takes you 4 minutes to read.
Do whatever you think you are best at and I will evaluate whatever you tell me to, however you tell me to. I 100% believe judges should adapt to debaters in order to make it more exploratory, creative, educational, and fun for competitors. I like K debates, but I find a solid throw-down on the deterrence disad or something pretty entertaining. I evaluate arguments tech>truth. However if you tell me not to, and win that I shouldn't, I won't.
I believe anything can be an argument unless its something racist, colonial, transphobic, sexist, etc. I reserve the right to make those determinations absent someone on the other team convincing me of it. I think voting teams down for being psychologically violent is good - so if you're reading this worried about your arguments perception, you should err on the side of caution. If it meets the standard to be voted down, which is a low standard in cases of racism etc., you'll also get the minimum number of speaker points possible.
I dont think debate is a game. I think debate is a site where people come together to discuss strategies to solve something, and the judge endorses the team who comes up with the better strategy to solve the biggest something. I dont think strategies have to be exportable outside of debate if you win that its best if the strategy occurs within debate. This makes it seem like I always vote for the K, that's not true. This is my frame for how I view debate - I think a team can win the States CP is the best strategy for solving something, just as much as I think a team can win psychoanalysis is the best strategy for solving something. Win that the thing you solve outweighs the thing they solve.
I like to judge T debates against policy affs a lot more than I do against K affs. I'm not saying don't run T-USFG on the K aff, but please do it correctly. This means prove their model of debate produces poor scholarship/debate. Prove your model can solve a substantial amount of the aff. I like education impacts more than fairness claims, this is because I think fairness is an internal link, not an impact. What I'm saying is make sure you terminalize the impact on this flow.
I think a CP is almost a necessity for most policy 1nc's - they're very strategic. I'll evaluate CP's based on if they solve the aff and if the net benefit outweighs disads to the CP. I don't like theory but I think it's a good strategy against an abusive CP, so I encourage theory in the 2ac against most CP's.
I evaluate disads in what I would like to think is a pretty normal way. Win the parts of the disad and win it outweighs the aff.
K debates - FW is important so that I have something to filter all the tech arguments through. Other than that, I think neg teams need to win a sufficient link and impact on the K to garner offense with it. I think the alternative is good to have for weighing it vs. the aff, but it isn't a necessity (if you kick the alt make sure the K turns the case). I think to answer the K, an aff team should attack the link/perm debate the most. I also think if an aff team proves the alt can't solve the aff, and that the aff outweighs the K, then I'd vote for the aff on the K.
I don't really like theory debates much. I'll vote for them if you win them but I think theory debates are usually regressive. I hate when teams go for condo unless the other team just massively undercovers it.
Speaks! I adjust my speaks based on the quality of the competition pool. If the teams in competition aren't national tournament level, they won't get national tournament speaking expectations. For example, a 28.6 at Greenhill is going to get you like a 29.5 at the North Lamar tournament. The higher quality tournament, the tougher I am. I tend to give average speaks of about 28.7 I'd say, so I guess I start there and move up or down throughout the debate. I think that giving speaker points based on how well you speak is ableist, so I only give them based on how well you debated. I do give bonus points for funny jokes etc. +.5 if you send the docs before the cx period prior to your speech ends!
I reserve the right to vote a team down if they engage in insensitive/unethical debate. No excuses for things such as racial or gender discrimination. Debate should be a safe space and I think it is a judges responsibility to hold debaters accountable for that.